Kant says that the right to necessity is an imagined right
that supposedly gives one permission to take another’s life to save their own.
He says that this act while not inculpable, it is unpunishable. Under
circumstances it is easy to understand the principle and real world
application. When a starving homeless man steals an apple, we do not say his
action is unjust. There is a clear necessity that he has that has been placed
above the right that one has to their ownership of the apple.
Aristotle says an action cannot be just or unjust if it is
not voluntary. In looking at these two philosophical views, there is an overlap
in how if one were to kill another out of the need to survive, then to an
extent their action is coerced. However a question arises in how many one can
kill out of this necessity before it is no longer justifiable if there is ever
a limit? The underlying question I believe is how far one can go to prevent
themselves from suffering an injustice and to what extent does the person have
to have the knowledge to the likelihood of the injustice? Are preemptively striking a person who you believed
to be about to endanger you justifiable? I believe this knowledge is a very
important factor. If an assailant is attacking you with a knife then you know
that there is a probable chance that you life could be taken. However if you saw
a suspicious man who you believed to be following you with a knife can you
preemptively attack yourself. In both situations the attack is done to protect
their own life but the affirmation of danger is not present in the second case.
In another instance, say that someone has committed a crime
and receives or will receive the death penalty. Is he not justified in
eliminating the people involved that are a threat to his life? In another case
say that five people need five different organs and that they could kill one
person for these organs. Should we justify these people’s attempt or condemn
them. Under Kant’s justification, the people would not be punishable because
they are acting out of self preservation. But then why stop at self
preservation. If one acts on the behalf of another to save their life, should
their actions be punishable or is self preservation the only justification that
can be given. Kant implies the latter however what about other instincts? Say
the action is done for an offspring.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe concept of necessity definitely adds a complicating aspect to Kant's philosophies regarding justice and morality. Your point about the degree of necessity brings up an interesting question: could we justify any action by saying it was the right of necessity? The right of necessity does seem to provide a convenient loophole. Can one justify punching someone as "self defense" (right of necessity) because someone was looking at them in a weird way? It seems ludicrous to think about the right to necessity this way, but at the same time this example does seem to abide by the principle.
ReplyDeleteOn another note, the right of necessity seems to be in direct contradiction with Kant's categorical imperative. The first part of his categorical imperative states: "act only in such a way that you can will the maxim of your action as a universal law". I think we would all agree that the maxim of harming another person would not be considered okay as a universal law.
Is there a way that these two conflicting concepts be joined under Kant's moral theory?
Maddy Clements
This is an interesting discussion. Maddy, I wonder if Kant might say that by acting based on the right of necessity, you are still following his categorical imperative because instead of willing "harming another person is good" as a universal law you are willing "harming another person in self-defense is permissible" as a universal law. Because Kant believes that all people have a right defend themselves against force or threat of force to protect their own lives, the right of necessity is a universal law.
ReplyDeleteI do agree that the right of necessity seems to be a convenient loophole. As I commented on Rosemary's post, I think that in practice, this right could be used to justify anything because how can society honestly and accurately judge what constitutes the "needs" of an individual. In the case of self-defense, doesn't caution lead individuals to overestimate the danger around them for self-preservation's sake? Also, doesn't fear override our rational capabilities? If so, how can someone act as a free, rational and autonomous being, as Kant suggests, if a dangerous situation causes them to be blinded by their passions? Wouldn't their actions be unjust if they could not think rationally? Practically speaking, right of necessity is problematic for society because it underestimates the human propensity to fear the unknown.